Notice2025-19612
Hil Rizvi, M.D.; Decision and Order
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 21, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 201 (Tuesday, October 21, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 21, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48435-48439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19612]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 25-24]
Hil Rizvi, M.D.; Decision and Order
On December 2, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Hil Rizvi, M.D., of
Salt Lake City, Utah (Applicant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 9. The OSC proposed the denial of
Applicant's application for DEA registration, Control No. W24074770C,
alleging that he materially falsified his application. Id. at 1 (citing
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)). Specifically, the OSC alleged that Applicant's
application was materially false because he failed to disclose relevant
information in response to Liability Questions 2 and 3.\1\ Id. at 1, 4-
6; RFAA, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Government further alleged that granting Applicant's
application would be outside the public interest because during
DEA's investigation Applicant demonstrated a lack of candor, which
threatened the public health and safety. RFAAX 2, at 1, 7-8 (citing
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(E)); RFAA, at 5. However, due to the Agency's
finding that Applicant submitted a materially false application,
which serves as an independent basis for sanction under 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(1), the Agency need not make a finding on the public interest
allegation. Even without being a basis for denial, Applicant's lack
of candor is relevant to the Agency's determination of an
appropriate sanction. See infra Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 2025, the Government submitted a RFAA requesting
that the Agency issue a default final order denying Applicant's
application for registration. RFAA, at 1, 4-5. After carefully
reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in
detail below, the Agency grants the Government's request for final
agency action and denies Applicant's application for registration. As a
preliminary matter, this Decision addresses whether or not Applicant is
in default and finds that he is. Next, this Decision considers whether
Applicant submitted a materially false application for registration and
finds that he did. Lastly, this Decision determines that the
appropriate sanction is denial of Applicant's materially false
application.
I. Default Determination
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant or applicant entitled to a
hearing who fails to file a timely hearing request ``within 30 days
after the date of receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have
waived their right to a hearing and to be in default'' unless ``good
cause'' is established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a), (c)(1). In
the absence of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant or applicant
who fails to timely file an answer also is ``deemed to have waived
their right to a hearing and to be in default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2).
The OSC notified Applicant of his deadline to file a written
request for hearing and answer, and that if he failed to file such a
request and answer, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a
hearing and be in default.\2\ RFAAX 2, at 8 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
Applicant filed a hearing request and the matter was assigned to
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Teresa Wallbaum. RFAA, at 2; RFAAX 4, at
1-2. During prehearing proceedings, the ALJ concluded that Applicant's
hearing request was untimely, that he failed to demonstrate good cause
to excuse the untimely filing, that he failed to file an adequate or
timely answer, and that he failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse
the untimeliness or inadequacy of his answer. RFAA, at 2-3; RFAAX 4, at
4-9. Accordingly, the ALJ found Applicant in default and terminated the
proceedings. RFAA, at 3-4; RFAAX 4, at 9. The Agency finds that the ALJ
did not err in finding Applicant to be in default.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
February 25, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Applicant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on December 16, 2024, DI
emailed a copy of the OSC to Applicant after mailed copies were
returned as undeliverable. RFAAX 3. During prehearing proceedings,
Applicant confirmed that he received the emailed OSC on December 17,
2025, which the Agency construes as a typographical error and that
Applicant intended to indicate he received the OSC on December 17,
2024. RFAAX 4, at 5. Therefore, due process notice requirements have
been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver
of the [applicant's] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual
allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Because Applicant is in
default, the Agency finds that Applicant has admitted to the factual
allegations in the OSC. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1).
Further, ``[i]n the event that [an applicant] . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the
Government has requested final agency action based on Applicant's
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 3-5;
see also 21 CFR 1316.67.
II. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Applicant's default, the factual
allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Accordingly, Applicant is deemed to have admitted to each of the
following facts.\3\ On June 11, 2024, he applied for DEA registration
as a practitioner in Schedules II through V with a registered address
in Salt Lake City, Utah.\4\ RFAAX 2, at 4; RFAAX 1, at 1. This
application was assigned Control No. W24074770C. Id. An application for
DEA registration includes liability questions, which an applicant must
answer either affirmatively or negatively. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),
``[f]indings of fact by the [DEA Administrator], if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.'' 21 U.S.C. 877. Here,
where Applicant is found to be in default, all the factual
allegations in the OSC are deemed to be admitted. These uncontested
and deemed admitted facts constitute evidence that exceeds the
``substantial evidence'' standard of 21 U.S.C. 877; it is unrebutted
evidence.
\4\ The OSC alleges that Applicant applied for a registration in
Wisconsin. RFAAX 2, at 4. Agency records reflect that Applicant
transferred this application to Utah. RFAAX 1, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liability Question 2
Liability Question 2 asks, ``Has the applicant ever surrendered
(for cause) or had a federal controlled substances registration
revoked, suspended, restricted, or denied, or is any such action
pending?'' RFAAX 2, at 4. If the applicant answers affirmatively, he or
she must provide additional information about the date, location,
nature, and result of the incident that is being referenced. Id.; RFAAX
1, at 1.
On December 21, 2020, Applicant's prior DEA registration, No.
BR4988599, was revoked. RFAAX 2, at 3, 5; RFAAX 1, at 1; see also Hil
Rizvi, M.D., 85 FR 73804, 73804-06 (2020) (Agency final order revoking
Applicant's DEA registration based on lack of state authority in
Pennsylvania). Thereafter, on his June 2024 application for DEA
registration, Applicant provided an affirmative answer to Liability
Question 2. RFAAX 2, at 4; RFAAX 1, at 1. He identified the incident
date as May 1, 2020, and the incident location as
[[Page 48436]]
``Tyrone PA.'' Id. For incident nature, he disclosed: ``Pennsylvania
medical license revoked by reciprocal action from Maine license
denial.'' Id. For incident result, he disclosed: ``Change of address
submitted to DEA to maintain old registration BR4988599 for another
state NH, overlooked by DEA registration staff Senator John Hoeven
North Dakota has confirmed DEA failed to update a change of address.
DEA registration and Pennsylvania medical license are separate
registration. Maine denial affected Ohio Pennsylvania eventually all
licenses. This applicant never practiced in Maine.'' Id.
Applicant's follow-up narrative in response to Liability Question 2
did not disclose that on December 21, 2020, his prior DEA registration
was revoked. RFAAX 2, at 3, 5; RFAAX 1, at 1; see also Hil Rizvi, M.D.,
85 FR at 73804-06.
Liability Question 3
Liability Question 3 asks, ``Has the applicant ever surrendered
(for cause) or had a state professional license or controlled substance
registration revoked, suspended, denied, restricted, or placed on
probation, or is any such action pending?'' RFAAX 2, at 4.
On his June 2024 application for DEA registration, Applicant
provided an affirmative answer to Liability Question 3. Id.; RFAAX 1,
at 1. He identified the incident date as May 1, 2020, and the incident
location as ``Tyrone PA.'' Id. For incident nature, he disclosed:
``Penn physician license revocation, with DEA registration also
revoked.'' Id. For incident result, he disclosed: ``Maine physician
license denial 2014, led to all medical licenses affected. This matter
has been evaluated by a Penn board consultant Dr James Cornish (and law
professor Dr C Wm Hinnant MD JD). It has been determined, there is no
clinical liability from the Maine license denial. Commonwealth
Pennsylvania Judge Mary Hanna Leavitt has written an opinion, the
Pennsylvania license revocation secondary to Maine denial, is an abuse
of authority by the Pennsylvania licensing Board of Medicine. A copy of
this opinion is available, Dr Cornish fitforduty report is available.''
Id.
His follow-up narratives in response to Liability Question 3 did
not disclose the following events:
(a) Vermont. On September 2, 1999, the Vermont Board of Medical
Practice summarily suspended his license to practice medicine in
Vermont after having found that he took the U.S. Medical Licensing
Examination 3 (USMLE 3) three times before obtaining a passing score
and thereby failed to meet the qualifications for medical licensure in
Vermont. RFAAX 2, at 5.
(b) West Virginia. On August 17, 1999, his West Virginia medical
license was revoked and immediately stayed for a period of five years
with probation, based on his failure to provide complete and accurate
information on a licensure application in Ohio and for having
represented himself as a resident physician when he was no longer
participating in a training program. RFAAX 2, at 5. On March 12, 2001,
the West Virginia Board of Medicine restored his license to full and
unrestricted status. Id. His West Virginia medical license subsequently
expired on June 30, 2013. Id.
(c) New Hampshire. On January 13, 2021, Applicant's New Hampshire
license to practice medicine was revoked because of the issues reported
by the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine, including that his license
to practice medicine was refused by the Maine Board of Licensure in
Medicine and that his license to practice medicine had been revoked by
the Medical Board of Ohio. RFAAX 2, at 6.
(d) New Mexico. On May 10, 2023, Applicant's application to
practice as a medical doctor in New Mexico was denied because of his
extensive history of adverse licensure actions in multiple
jurisdictions based on, but not limited to, his failure to disclose
information, dishonesty in applications, unprofessional conduct, and
non-compliance with other state Board Orders concerning practice
monitoring and recommendations. RFAAX 2, at 6.
(e) Oklahoma. On September 14, 2023, based on findings of
misconduct from other state boards, the Oklahoma State Board of Medical
Licensure and Supervision denied Applicant's application for full
medical licensure in Oklahoma. RFAAX 2, at 6.
III. Discussion
A DEA registration may be denied, suspended, or revoked upon a
finding that the applicant or registrant materially falsified any
application filed pursuant to or required by the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA). 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1).\5\ To present a prima facie case for
material falsification, the Government's record evidence must show (1)
the submission of an application, (2) containing a false statement and/
or omitting information that the application requires, (3) when the
submitter knew or should have known that the statement is false and/or
that the omitted information existed and the application required its
disclosure, and (4) the false statement and/or required but omitted
information is material, that is, it ``connect[s] to at least one of
[the section 823] factors that, according to the CSA, [the
Administrator] `shall' consider'' when analyzing ``whether issuing a
registration `would be inconsistent with the public interest.' '' Frank
Joseph Stirlacci, M.D., 85 FR 45229, 45238 (2020) (citing 21 U.S.C. 823
and Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771). The Government must establish material
falsification with record evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and
convincing. Kungys, 485 U.S. at 772; Stirlacci, 85 FR at 45230-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A statutory basis to deny an application pursuant to section
823 is also a basis to revoke or suspend a registration pursuant to
section 824, and vice versa, because doing ``otherwise would mean
that all applications would have to be granted only to be revoked
the next day . . . .'' Robert Wayne Locklear, M.D., 86 FR 33738,
33744-45 (2021) (collecting cases).
The Supreme Court's decision in Kungys v. United States, 485
U.S. 759 (1988), and its progeny, guide the Agency's implementation
of these CSA provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Government must prove that the applicant or registrant
submitted an application for registration pursuant to the CSA. 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(1); see also 21 U.S.C. 822 (persons required to
register); 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) (registration requirements).
Second, the Government must prove that the application contained a
false statement or omitted information that the application required,
either of which may constitute a material falsity. See, e.g., Emed
Medical Company LLC and Med Assist Pharmacy, 88 FR 21719, 21720 (2023)
(applicant falsely answered ``no'' to Liability Question 3 on seventeen
applications when the true answer was ``yes''); Richard J. Settles,
D.O., 81 FR 64940, 64945-46 (2016) (applicant failed to disclose an
interim consent agreement restricting his license based on findings
that he issued controlled substance prescriptions without federal or
state legal authority to do so). In making this assessment, the Agency
will examine the entire application, including registrant's ``yes/no''
answers to the liability questions and any follow-up response(s).
Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S., 80 FR 74800, 74802, 74,808-09 (2015). To
establish an omission, the Government must show both that omitted
information existed and that the application required inclusion of that
information. See, e.g., Richard A. Herbert, M.D., 76 FR 53942, 53956
(2011) (omission of a probation which the application required to be
identified); Michel P. Toret, M.D., 82 FR 60041, 60042 (2017)
(Voluntary Surrender Form alone is insufficient evidence to find
material falsification based on registrant's ``no'' answer to the
[[Page 48437]]
question regarding ``surrender[s] (for cause)'').
Third, the Government must prove that the applicant or registrant
knew or should have known that the statement is false and/or that the
omitted information existed and the application required its
disclosure. See John J. Cienki, M.D., 63 FR 52293, 52295 (1998) (``[I]n
finding that there has been a material falsification of an application,
it must be determined that the applicant knew or should have known that
the response given to the liability question was false.''); Samuel
Arnold, D.D.S., 63 FR 8687, 8688 (1998) (``It is also undisputed that
Respondent knew that his Ohio dental license had previously been
suspended.''); Bobby Watts, M.D., 58 FR 46995, 46995 (1993)
(``Respondent knew that the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners had
suspended his medical license on May 7, 1987, and had placed his state
medical license on probation on May 2, 1988.''); see also Stirlacci, 85
FR at 45236-37 & nn. 22-23 (collecting cases).
Fourth, the Government must prove that the false statement and/or
required but omitted information is ``material.'' Kungys holds that a
statement is material if it is ``predictably capable of affecting,
i.e., had a natural tendency to affect, the [Agency's] official
decision,'' or stated differently, ``had a natural tendency to
influence the decision.'' Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771-72. As already
discussed, materiality, for the purposes of the CSA, is tied to the
factors that the Administrator ``shall'' consider when determining
whether issuance of a registration ``would be inconsistent with the
public interest.'' \6\ 21 U.S.C. 823; Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771-72;
Stirlacci, 85 FR at 45234, 45238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Because the bases for revocation listed in 21 U.S.C. 824 may
also serve as bases to deny an application, see supra n.5, a finding
of materiality may also be tied to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR
1301.44. Here, the Agency finds that the Government's record evidence
presents a prima facie case that Applicant submitted a materially false
application. 21 U.S.C. 823, 824(a)(1).
Applicant truthfully answered Liability Questions 2 and 3 in the
affirmative. RFAA, at 1, 4; RFAAX 2, at 4-5. The Government alleges,
however, that Applicant's follow-up narratives in response to his
affirmative answers are materially false because they failed to
disclose relevant, required information. RFAA, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 5-6.
Having read and analyzed all the record evidence, Applicant is deemed
to have admitted and the Agency finds clear, unequivocal, and
convincing record evidence that Applicant's narrative response to
Liability Question 3 omitted relevant, required information, that these
omissions constitute falsities, and that these falsities are material.
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1); 21 CFR 1301.43(e); Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771-72;
Herbert, 76 FR at 53956.
Liability Question 2
The Agency finds the following based on clear, unequivocal, and
convincing record evidence, and Applicant is deemed to have admitted to
the same. Liability Question 2 asks whether the applicant has ever had
a federal controlled substance registration revoked, suspended,
restricted, or denied. RFAAX 2, at 4. When Applicant truthfully
answered ``yes'' to this question, he was required to provide
additional details concerning the date, location, nature, and result of
the incident or incidents that prompted the affirmative answer. Id.
In his follow-up narrative to Liability Question 2, Applicant's
response focused on his various state licenses and applications, and a
previous request to change his registered address with DEA. Id.; RFAAX
1, at 1. Applicant's follow-up narrative to Liability Question 2 did
not clearly state that his previous DEA registration was revoked, but
Applicant, by answering ``yes,'' had already admitted that he had a DEA
registration revoked, suspended, restricted, or denied. Id. Then, in
his follow-up response to Liability Question 3, Applicant clearly
stated: ``Penn physician license revocation, with DEA registration also
revoked.'' Id. (emphasis added). Applicant's disclosure notified DEA
that he had a previous DEA registration revoked and that it was related
to losing his medical license in Pennsylvania. Id. Thus, the
application contained a truthful and accurate disclosure.\7\ See RFAAX
1, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 4; Rizvi, 85 FR at 73804-06. The Government has
provided no argument or legal authority that more detail is required.
Even though the information was provided most clearly in response to
the liability question asking about state licensure, the Agency is
required to look at the entire application. Glick, 80 FR at 74808-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Even if the Agency were to find that the lack of clarity in
Applicant's narrative response to Liability Question 2 constituted a
falsification by omitting information that the application required,
the falsity would not have been material. Applicant went on to
explicitly include the allegedly omitted information in response to
the next question on the application. RFAAX 1, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 4.
Accordingly, Applicant provided the Agency all the information it
needed to conduct the required analysis under 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)
and 21 U.S.C. 824 such that any omission in Liability Question 2
could not be ``predictably capable of affecting . . . the [Agency's]
official decision.'' Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the Government has not established by clear, unequivocal,
and convincing record evidence that Applicant failed to disclose on his
application that he had a previous DEA registration revoked. Thus, the
Government has not established a prima facie case that Applicant's
response to Liability Question 2 was materially false.
Liability Question 3
The Agency finds the following based on clear, unequivocal, and
convincing record evidence, and Applicant is deemed to have admitted to
the same. Liability Question 3 asks whether the applicant has ever had
any adverse action taken against a state professional or controlled
substance license, to include surrender for cause, revocation,
suspension, denial, restriction, or probation. RFAAX 2, at 4. When
Applicant truthfully answered ``yes'' to this question, he was required
to provide additional details concerning the date, location, nature,
and result of the incident or incidents that prompted the affirmative
answer. Id. In his follow-up narrative to Liability Question 3,
Applicant disclosed that his Pennsylvania medical license had been
revoked and his application for medical licensure in Maine had been
denied. Id.; RFAAX 1, at 1. In his follow-up response to Liability
Question 2, Applicant disclosed that the denial of his application in
Maine ``affected Ohio.'' RFAAX 2, at 4; RFAAX 1, at 1.
Applicant, however, omitted additional relevant information
responsive to Liability Question 3, namely that his West Virginia
medical license was revoked and placed on probation in 1999; his
Vermont medical license was suspended in 1999; his New Hampshire
medical license was revoked in 2021; his application for medical
licensure in Oklahoma was denied in 2023; and his application for
medical licensure in New Mexico was denied in 2023.\8\ RFAAX 2, at 5-6;
RFAAX 1, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The OSC further alleged that Applicant failed to disclose a
``Stipulation and Order'' issued by the Utah Division of
Professional Licensing; denial of his application for medical
licensure in Maine; and revocation of his medical license in Ohio.
RFAAX 2, at 6.
Regarding the Utah allegation, the OSC does not indicate whether
the ``Stipulation and Order'' involved any of the adverse actions
listed in Liability Question 3, namely surrender for cause,
revocation, suspension, denial, restriction, or probation. Id. Thus,
the factual record is insufficient to determine whether Applicant
was obligated to disclose this information in response to Liability
Question 3.
Regarding the Maine allegation, Applicant wrote in his follow-up
narrative: ``Maine physician license denial 2014.'' RFAAX 2, at 4;
RFAAX 1, at 1. Thus, this allegation is not sustained, because the
record evidence shows that Applicant did, in fact, disclose the
denial of an application in Maine.
Regarding the Ohio allegation, Applicant disclosed in his
follow-up narrative to Liability Question 2 that denial of his
application in Maine ``affected Ohio.'' RFAAX 2, at 4; RFAAX 1, at
1. This response informed DEA of an adverse action against him in
Ohio and the Government has not provided any authority to support
the proposition that the application required more detailed
information than this. Thus, Applicant did not provide a false
answer with respect to the adverse action against his Ohio license.
Further, even if the Agency were to find this response to be false,
it would not be material. See supra n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48438]]
Applicant's failure to disclose that he had prior adverse actions
against state licenses, to include revocation, probation, and denial,
constitutes a falsity.\9\ Pamela Monterosso, D.M.D., 73 FR 11146,
11147-48 (2008). The application clearly requested additional
information concerning the nature and result of each of the incidents
which prompted a ``yes'' answer to Liability Question 3. RFAAX 2, at 4.
Applicant knew or should have known that the actions against his West
Virginia license, his Vermont license, his New Hampshire license, his
Oklahoma application, and his New Mexico application existed and that
the DEA application required their disclosure. Id. at 3-6. Indeed,
Applicant clearly understood that the DEA application requested this
information, because he did, in fact, disclose some actions against
licenses in other states. Id. Although Applicant answered ``yes'' to
Liability Question 3, he failed to identify in the follow-up response
the revocation of his West Virginia and New Hampshire licenses, the
suspension of his Vermont license, and the denial of his Oklahoma and
New Mexico applications. Id. Failing to identify these adverse actions
constitutes a falsity as to each omission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Applicant's response to Liability Question 2 refers to ``all
licenses'' and his response to Liability Question 3 refers to ``all
medical licenses affected.'' RFAAX 2, at 4; RFAAX 1, at 1. These
vague statements, however, do not disclose the adverse actions that
Applicant was required to disclose in response to Liability Question
3, and do not change the Agency's finding that Applicant omitted
relevant information and that such omissions were materially false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, these falsities are material. Liability Question 3 is
intended to obtain information relevant to conduct the analysis
required by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824. Specifically, 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)
directs the Administrator \10\ to consider whether the applicant is
``authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices,'' and to determine whether
registration ``would be inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Further, the public interest factors require the
Administrator to consider the recommendation of state licensing boards,
the applicant's experience in handling controlled substances, the
applicant's compliance with state laws related to controlled
substances, and other conduct which may threaten public safety. 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A), (B), (D), (E). Additionally, 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)
and (4) require the Administrator to consider whether the applicant has
had a state license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by
state authority, and whether the applicant has committed acts
inconsistent with the public interest. Liability Question 3, in other
words, is tethered to provisions which the Administrator is required by
statute to consider when reviewing applications for registration.
Stirlacci, 85 FR at 45238. Thus, a false answer to Liability Question 3
is material. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The CSA vests authority in the Attorney General, who has
delegated such authority under the CSA to the Administrator of DEA
(the Agency). 21 U.S.C. 821, 823, 824; 28 CFR 0.100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By omitting adverse actions against three state licenses and two
state license applications, Applicant ``deprived [DEA] of information
potentially relevant to'' the analysis that the Administrator is
statutorily mandated to conduct. Stirlacci, 85 FR at 45234-35; 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a); RFAAX 2, at 5-6; RFAAX 1, at 1. Thus,
omission of this information directly affected the public interest
analysis that DEA was required to make when it reviewed his
registration application. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), 824(a); Stirlacci, 85 FR
at 45238. Stated differently, the omissions were material because they
were ``predictably capable of affecting . . . [DEA's] official
decision'' regarding whether Applicant met ``the requirements for''
registration.\11\ Kungys, 485 U.S. at 771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The fact that Applicant truthfully disclosed some state
adverse actions does not negate a finding of materiality regarding
the omitted state actions. See, e.g., Settles, 81 FR at 64945-46
(applicant disclosed state probation but failed to disclose a
subsequent state order alleging that he violated the probation);
Jose G. Zavaleta, M.D., 78 FR 27431, 27439 (2013) (applicant
disclosed surrender of registration but failed to disclose state
suspension); Herbert, 76 FR at 53956-57 (disclosed one probation but
not another); Harold Edward Smith, M.D., 76 FR 53961, 53963-64
(2011) (disclosed one board order but failed to disclose several
others); Alvin Darby, M.D., 75 FR 26993, 26998-99 (2010) (disclosed
surrender of registration but failed to disclose criminal conviction
and state license probation); Monterosso, 73 FR at 11147-48
(disclosed one conviction but failed to disclose another).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the Agency finds clear, unequivocal, and convincing record
evidence that Applicant's response to Liability Question 3 was
materially false for failure to disclose revocation and probation of
his medical license in West Virginia, suspension of his medical license
in Vermont, revocation of his medical license in New Hampshire, and
denial of his applications for medical licensure in Oklahoma and New
Mexico. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1); 21 CFR 1301.43(e). The Agency further
finds that the Government has established a prima facie case for
material falsification, that Applicant did not rebut that prima facie
case, and that there is clear, unequivocal, and convincing record
evidence supporting the denial of Applicant's application. 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(1).
IV. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Applicant submitted a materially false application for registration,
the burden shifts to Applicant to show why he can be trusted with a
registration. Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 181 (D.C. Cir.
2005); Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881
F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR
18882, 18904 (2018). The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent
determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual.
Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019); see also Jones Total
Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past performance is
the best predictor of future performance, the Agency requires that a
registrant or applicant who has committed acts inconsistent with the
public interest accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate
that he will not engage in future misconduct. See Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833; ALRA Labs, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin.,
54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 1995). The Agency requires acceptance of
responsibility to be unequivocal. Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 89 FR
82639, 82641 (2024); Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018);
see also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31.
In addition, a registrant's or applicant's candor during the
investigation is an important factor in determining acceptance of
responsibility and the appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31; Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 483-84. Further,
the Agency considers the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct as
significant factors
[[Page 48439]]
in determining the appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 834 & n.4. The Agency also considers the need to
deter similar acts by an applicant and by the community of registrants.
Stein, 84 FR at 46972-73.
Here, Applicant did not timely request a hearing, or timely or
properly answer the allegations, and was therefore deemed to be in
default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA, at 1-4. To date,
Applicant has not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator
to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). Applicant has thus failed
to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and has not otherwise
availed himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As
such, Applicant has not accepted responsibility for the proven
violations, has made no representations regarding his future compliance
with the CSA, and has not made any demonstration that he can be trusted
with registration.
Moreover, the evidence presented by the Government shows that
Applicant supplied DEA with materially false information in his
application for registration, further demonstrating that Applicant
cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of holding a controlled
substances registration. Additionally, the material information
Applicant failed to disclose reveals that he has engaged in a pattern
of dishonesty over many years with multiple state jurisdictions. RFAAX
2, at 3-6. Similarly, Applicant is deemed to have admitted that he
``lacked candor during the course of [the] investigation by the DEA.''
Id. at 8. If the Agency were to issue a registration to Applicant under
these circumstances, it would send a dangerous message that submitting
truthful, accurate, and complete information to DEA is not essential
for obtaining a registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order the
denial of Applicant's application.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 823 and 824, I hereby deny the pending application for a DEA
Certificate of Registration, No. W24074770C, submitted by Hil Rizvi,
M.D., as well as any other pending application of Hil Rizvi, M.D., for
additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective November 20,
2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
October 9, 2025, by Administrator Terrance Cole. That document with the
original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the
Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic
format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-19612 Filed 10-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 21, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.